Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 1 of 6 (615095)
05-10-2011 9:34 AM


First posting, having read these forums from afar, so bear with me. Not my specialisation really, I teach Biology, but having to teach life cycles of stars I did a little research. If our sun is second, or third generation ; as they have found out by looking at the composition, does this not negate the whole "let there be light" narrative. The fact that our sun actually formed from a supernova of a previous sun means we have already had light. I await being torn apart with trepidation !
Edited by CogitoErgoSum, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2011 3:54 AM CogitoErgoSum has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 6 (615168)
05-11-2011 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum
05-10-2011 9:34 AM


Reference please, etc.
...I did a little research. If our sun is second, or third generation...
A reference link to support that, please.
...does this not negate the whole "let there be light" narrative. The fact that our sun actually formed from a supernova of a previous sun means we have already had light.
As I see it, if anything, it gives creationists an out to explain how God created light 2 days (wasn't it?) before the creation of the (current) sun. That light could have been from the previous sun version.
Adminnemooseus

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-10-2011 9:34 AM CogitoErgoSum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-11-2011 10:36 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 3 of 6 (615200)
05-11-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
05-11-2011 3:54 AM


Re: Reference please, etc.
"Our own sun contains about 2 percent of these heavier elements [oxygen and carbon] because it is a second- or third- generation star, formed some five thousand million years ago out of a cloud of rotating gas containing the debris of earlier supernovas. Most of the gas in that cloud went to form the sun or got blown away, but a small amount of the heavier elements collected together to form the bodies that now orbit the sun as planets like the earth." Stephen Hawking - Brief History of Time
Sorry I didn't want to just produce a post with a load of links on it, as I find those a little wearing.
Sun - New World Encyclopedia
I realise that to accept this the timeframe would play havoc with YEC anyway.
You may be right about the Genesis narrative. I have read through it and despite reading through, I cannot find mention of light 2 days before the creation of the sun. I suppose, as with all religious texts, the interpretation can be warped to fit whatever evidence is displayed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2011 3:54 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-11-2011 3:45 PM CogitoErgoSum has not replied
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2011 7:54 PM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 646 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 4 of 6 (615233)
05-11-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by CogitoErgoSum
05-11-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Reference please, etc.
I'll research properly, forget topic. My ego wouldn't be able to deal with feeling wrong !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-11-2011 10:36 AM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 6 (615254)
05-11-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by CogitoErgoSum
05-11-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Reference please, etc.
You may be right about the Genesis narrative. I have read through it and despite reading through, I cannot find mention of light 2 days before the creation of the sun. I suppose, as with all religious texts, the interpretation can be warped to fit whatever evidence is displayed.
Creates light:
quote:
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.
Creates sun and moon:
quote:
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day.
Source
I misguessed - God created light 3 days before creating the sun.
Sorry I didn't want to just produce a post with a load of links on it, as I find those a little wearing.
Don't want a load of links, but 1 or 2 is nice, and is (more or less) called for by forum rule 4:
quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Without a reference/link, it's a bare assertion.
I could have let you get away with not having a reference/link, but such are desirable.
Adminnemooseus

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-11-2011 10:36 AM CogitoErgoSum has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 6 of 6 (615260)
05-11-2011 8:01 PM


Thread Copied to Big Bang and Cosmology Forum
Thread copied to the If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ? thread in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024